Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
Agency Information:  
Department name:  
Labor and Economic Opportunity  
Bureau name:  
MIOSHA  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Heather Albert  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-284-7738  
E-mail of person filling out RIS:  
AlbertH@michigan.gov  
Rule Set Information:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2024-51 LE  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Part 25. Concrete Construction  
Comparison of Rule(s) to Federal/State/Association Standard  
1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency or  
accreditation association, if any exist.  
The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) proposed rules were compared to rules in  
effect for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the states of Washington and  
California. MIOSHA’s proposed rules were also compared to the American National Standards Institute/American  
Society of Safety Professionals (ANSI/ASSP) A10.9 Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry consensus  
standard that addresses specific hazards during reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
No, the proposed new rules in the MIOSHA Part 25, Concrete Construction standard are not required by state law or  
federal mandate in the scope of Part 25. The industry approached MIOSHA to promulgate these proposed rules to  
better protect the safety and health of Michigan workers. Many of the proposed rules for the MIOSHA Part 25,  
Concrete Construction standard already exist in the MIOSHA Part 26, Steel Erection standard. However, the typical  
construction process involves concrete work on a site to be conducted prior to the steel erection so the protections in  
the Part 26 Steel Erection standard do not protect the employees conducting the concrete work conducted under Part  
25, Concrete Operations (e.g., site layout and access).  
B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it is  
necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and benefits arising out  
of the deviation.  
MIOSHA’s proposed rules do not exceed the federal standard.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,  
natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
MIOSHA’s proposed rules are to adopt safety standards that address specific hazards during reinforcing steel and post  
-tensioning activities. Similar standards have been adopted by the California Division of Occupational Safety and  
Health and the Washington Division of Occupational Safety and Health which have organizational commonalities and  
economic similarities with MIOSHA.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of  
the deviation.  
The proposed rules do not exceed standards in California or Washington.  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed  
rules.  
There are no laws, rules, and other legal requirements that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rules.  
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local laws  
applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the efforts undertaken  
by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.  
MIOSHA’s proposed rules are to adopt safety standards that address specific hazards during reinforcing steel and post  
-tensioning activities. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the Washington Division of  
Occupational Safety and Health have made similar updates.  
Purpose and Objectives of the Rule(s)  
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
1. Site conditions related to equipment and material handling incidents – Many construction workers have sustained  
injuries due to inadequate and unacceptable jobsite conditions while off-loading steel or fabricating reinforcing steel  
assemblies. Concrete contractors are not provided with the same safety provisions for site conditions as steel erection  
contractors that are contained in the steel erection safety standards.  
2. Structural Collapse of Vertical Formwork and Decks – Fatalities and disabling injuries continue to occur due to the  
lack of specific requirements for the appropriate parties to evaluate the structural integrity of structures. Current rules  
do not designate who is to ensure that formwork is adequately supported prior to access by reinforcing steel  
ironworkers or other trade workers.  
3. Structural Collapse of Vertical and Horizontal Columns – Fatalities and disabling injuries continue to occur due to  
the lack of specific guying and bracing requirements to maintain stability of vertical and horizontal columns.  
4. Responsibilities for maintaining impalement covers - Many serious incidents and legal issues involve the use,  
inspection, and responsibility to maintain dowel impalement covers during reinforcing steel activities. New standards  
are needed to address responsibilities of appropriate parties to maintain protective covers during the construction  
process after the reinforcing steel contractor leaves the work area.  
5. Requirements for written notifications – The lack of communication and approval to commence reinforcing steel  
activities has contributed to serious incident trends. It is the position of reinforcing steel stakeholders that written  
notifications are necessary for certain reinforcing steel activities to prevent fatalities and serious injuries.  
6. Requirements for special training – The lack of specific training has been identified as a primary causation factor in  
many reinforcing steel incidents.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
MIOSHA estimates a reduction of incidents in reinforcing steel due to the behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
Fatalities and serious injuries have been directly linked to the lack of safety standards to address specific hazards  
during common reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
Post-tensioning exposures and standards - Serious incidents and fatalities have occurred during the use of post-  
tensioning equipment. The increasing use of post-tension cables in poured in-place concrete structures presents  
workplace hazards to workers engaged in this process as well as other trade workers on the project. New safety  
standards pertaining to training and the use of post-tensioning equipment are needed to help prevent workplace  
hazards and reoccurring incidents during post-tensioning operations.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
To address specific hazards during common reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities by providing updates that  
are designed to prevent workplace injuries.  
5. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood  
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.  
Without the proposed rules, construction workers in Michigan will be at greater risk for injuries, and possibly  
fatalities.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
Fatalities and serious injuries have been directly linked to the lack of safety standards to address specific hazards  
during common reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities.  
6. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting a  
regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.  
The proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Michigan by addressing specific hazards  
during common reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities and providing updates that are designed to prevent  
workplace injuries. MIOSHA has reviewed suggestions provided by the Iron Worker International Union, reviewed  
the ANSI/ASSP A10.9 Safety Requirements for Concrete and Masonry, and formed an advisory committee to include  
industry labor, technical, and management representatives to ensure these rule updates promote a regulatory  
environment that is the least burdensome for those required to comply.  
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
MIOSHA has not identified any portion of the rule set as obsolete or unnecessary. No rules are being rescinded  
during this update.  
Fiscal Impact on the Agency  
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring additional staff,  
higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and above what is currently  
expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such as opportunity costs, the value of  
time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on expenditures.  
8. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings for  
the agency promulgating the rule).  
Printing and distribution of the rules is estimated to be $200. In addition, in-house training for MIOSHA staff is  
estimated to be $1,000.  
9. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
The MIOSHA agency has a training budget that includes educating our employees on revisions to standards.  
10. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to the  
burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or duplicative  
acts.  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, which was  
made up of industry representatives from both management and labor. The committee weighed the benefits versus the  
fiscal burdens of the regulated community.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and reasonable  
compared to the burdens.  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, which was  
made up of industry representatives from both management and labor. The committee weighed the benefits versus the  
burdens and determined that the proposed rules are needed to ensure the safety and health of the regulated  
community.  
Impact on Other State or Local Governmental Units  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
11. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities, counties,  
school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or local  
governmental units (i.e. cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment,  
supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing  
monitoring.  
MIOSHA does not anticipate any increase or decrease in revenues or costs to other state or local units of government  
as a result of the rule updates.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
MIOSHA has exclusive jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the occupational safety and health programs in  
Michigan. No program, service, duty, or responsibility will be imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district due to updating these rules.  
A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section should  
include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational practices.  
No actions are required for governmental units to be in compliance with the updated rules.  
13. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding  
source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
No funding source has been provided for any additional expenditures for state or local units of government because  
no additional expenditures have been created by updating these rules.  
Rural Impact  
14. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
In general, the rules will not have an impact on rural areas.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
Neither public nor private interests will be affected in rural areas by these updated rules.  
Environmental Impact  
15. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
The proposed rules will not have an environmental impact.  
Small Business Impact Statement  
16. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
MIOSHA administers the occupational safety and health program in compliance with the provisions of the MIOSHA  
Act of 154 of 1974, as amended, and consistent with an agreement between Michigan and the Unites States Secretary  
of Labor, which became effective October 3, 1973, and is known as the Michigan State Plan for Occupational Safety  
and Health. Under the agreement, MIOSHA has exclusive jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the  
occupational safety and health program in Michigan that covers most private-sector employees and all state and local  
government workers. As a result, MIOSHA is unable to exempt small business from the proposed rules.  
17. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic impact  
of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency to comply  
with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as described below (in  
accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful or feasible.  
All businesses must be treated equally in order to accomplish the purposes of the proposed rules and to protect  
employees from workplace hazards.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable effect on  
small businesses.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
The proposed rules will not create a disproportionate impact on small businesses. There are an estimated 2,600 small  
businesses (less than 50 employees) in Michigan in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2381 –  
Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors who will be required to meet the new requirements in these  
rules. Businesses will be required to ensure safe site conditions, improved safety measures during tendon tensioning  
operations, take measures to ensure structural integrity during formwork and form removal, and provide training to  
employees by a qualified person during and around specified work activities.  
B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small  
businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other administrative costs.  
MIOSHA did not establish differing compliance, reporting requirements, or timetables for small businesses under the  
rules. The proposed rules will not create a disproportionate impact on small businesses. All businesses must be  
treated equally in order to accomplish the purposes of the proposed rules and to protect all employees from  
workplace hazards.  
C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for small  
businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.  
MIOSHA did not consolidate or simplify the compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses. The  
proposed rules will not create a disproportionate impact on small businesses. All businesses must be treated equally  
in order to accomplish the purposes of the proposed rules and to protect employees from workplace hazards.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards required  
by the proposed rules.  
There are no performance standards to replace design or operation standards required by the proposed rules.  
18. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size or  
geographic location.  
The proposed rules will not create a disproportionate impact on small businesses.  
19. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
There is no expected economic impact on small businesses because of the proposed rules. These rules do not require  
employers to prepare any reports.  
20. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
There is no expectation of an effect on small businesses because of the proposed rules, nor are there any added costs.  
21. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules should not create a need for any legal, consulting, or accounting services for small businesses to  
be able to follow the proposed rules.  
22. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
There is no expected cause of economic harm or for the rules to adversely affect competition in the marketplace.  
23. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser  
standards for compliance by small businesses.  
Lesser standards for small businesses would leave employees exposed to the workplace hazards these rules aim to  
eliminate. It would not be beneficial to allow employees of small businesses to be exposed to these hazards. All  
businesses must be treated equally in order to accomplish the purposes of the proposed rules and to protect  
employees from workplace hazards.  
24. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
Lesser standards for small businesses would leave employees exposed to the workplace hazards these rules aim to  
eliminate. It would not be beneficial to allow employees of small businesses to be exposed to these hazards.  
Administering lesser compliance standards for small businesses would put employees at risk of sustaining injuries  
including fatal injuries. All businesses must be treated equally in order to accomplish the purposes of the proposed  
rules and to protect employees from workplace hazards.  
25. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
The proposed rules are consistent with the recommendations agreed upon by the Advisory Committee, which was  
made up of industry representatives from both management and labor including small business owners. The  
committee weighed the benefits versus the fiscal burdens of the regulated community, including small businesses.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
Advisory Committee members involved with developing these rules include members from the International  
Association of Ironworker, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron  
Workers, Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association. These organizations represent their members who  
include small business. Ms. Kathleen Dobson, owner of KD Safety Solutions, LLC, which is a small business, was a  
member of the Advisory Committee.  
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact)  
26. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
There are no estimated increased compliance costs with these rule amendments on concrete workers and employers.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit from the  
proposed rules.  
The rules will affect employers and employees in the concrete industry. The proposed rules address the potential risk  
of injuries and fatalities to concrete workers based on specific hazards during the reinforcing concrete and post-  
tensioning process.  
B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed rules (i.e.  
new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and number of businesses  
and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.  
There are no anticipated additional costs imposed upon businesses or other groups because of compliance with these  
proposed rules.  
27. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or  
the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new  
equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.  
There will be no expected additional compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
The scope of this standard primarily pertains to individuals in NAICS 2381 Foundation, Structure, and Building  
Exterior Contractors. There are an estimated 2,700 businesses with a NAICS code of 2381 in Michigan. All these  
businesses and their employees will be required to adhere to the new proposed rules.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
MIOSHA estimates a reduction of incidents in reinforcing steel operations as a result of compliance with the  
proposed rules. Fatalities and serious injuries have been directly linked to the lack of safety standards to address  
specific hazards during common reinforcing steel and post-tensioning activities. Since the adoption of these  
standards by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, there has been reduction in California’s  
incidence rates of non-fatal occupational injuries and illness in NAICS 2381 Foundation, Structure, and Building  
Exterior Contractors, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  
28. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result  
of the proposed rules.  
There will be no cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or government units as a result of  
the proposed rules.  
29. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please  
provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as your assumptions.  
MIOSHA estimates the primary and direct benefits of the proposed rules to be a reduction in fatalities and injuries  
directly linked to the lack of safety standards which address specific hazards during common reinforcing steel and  
post-tensioning activities.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
There is no expected significant impact on business growth, job growth, or job elimination because of the rules.  
31. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
The department does not expect any disproportionate effect on any individuals or businesses by their industrial  
sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographical location.  
32. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the  
methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-  
benefit analysis of the proposed rules.  
The sources relied upon for compiling the regulatory impact statement included the California Division of  
Occupational Health and Safety and the Washington Division of Occupational Health and Safety as a comparison of  
the current MIOSHA standard to establish the proposed changes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Injury and illness  
incidence rates by state were also relied upon.  
A. How were estimates made, and what were your assumptions? Include internal and external sources, published  
reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need for the proposed  
rules.  
The resources used in compiling the regulatory impact statement included the California Division of Occupational  
Health and Safety and the Washington Division of Occupational Health and Safety as a comparison of the current  
MIOSHA standard to establish the effectiveness of the proposed changes.  
Alternative to Regulation  
33. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
There are no known statutory amendments to achieve alternatives that MIOSHA hasn’t addressed.  
34. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would  
operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based systems  
utilized by other states.  
MIOSHA administers the occupational safety and health program in compliance with the provisions of the MIOSHA  
Act of 154 of 1974, as amended, and consistent with an agreement between Michigan and the Unites States Secretary  
of Labor, which became effective October 3, 1973, and is known as the Michigan State Plan for Occupational Safety  
and Health. Under the agreement, MIOSHA has exclusive jurisdiction for administering and enforcing the  
occupational safety and health program in Michigan that covers most private-sector employees and all state and local  
government workers. As a result, a private market-based mechanism is not feasible to administer and enforce the  
proposed rules.  
35. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not  
incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions and  
discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.  
The advisory committee reviewed the language of similar rules issued by OSHA, the California Division of  
Occupational Safety and Health, and the Washington Division of Occupational Safety and Health, which all  
incorporate similar requirements. The committee agreed the proposed changes would be the most effective in  
reducing the risk of injuries and fatalities and no alternative means would be as effective in protecting employees.  
Additional Information  
36. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
There are no applicable instructions.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;